Bug 684826

Summary:	Versioning in naming of libgirepository makes no sense
Product:	[openSUSE] openSUSE 12.2	Reporter:	Michael Schröder <mls>
Component:	GNOME	Assignee:	Dominique Leuenberger <dimstar>
Status:	RESOLVED FIXED	QA Contact:	E-mail List <qa-bugs>
Severity:	Normal
Priority:	P5 - None	CC:	anixx, dimstar, tcech
Version:	Factory
Target Milestone:	Factory
Hardware:	Other
OS:	Other
Whiteboard:
Found By:	Customer	Services Priority:
Business Priority:		Blocker:	---
Marketing QA Status:	---	IT Deployment:	---

Description Michael Schröder 2011-04-04 10:17:01 UTC

11.3 has "libgirepository-1_0-0" as package name, whereas 11.4 has "libgirepository-1_0-1". I don't think that the "-0" and "-1" suffix makes sense, as it is not possible two have both packages installed in parallel.
(The packages contain files in /usr/lib/girepository-1.0 for both packages, so you have a file conflict)

A customer updated from 11.3 to 11.4, libgirepository-1_0-0 was not removed in the update process for some reason (probably coolo didn't mark it as obsolete).

After the update, commands like 'ccsm' fail with strange errors:
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/gtk-2.0/gtk/__init__.py:40: RuntimeWarning: 
tp_compare didn't return -1 or -2 for exception
  from gtk import _gtk

Removing the libgirepository-1_0-0 package fixed the problem for the customer.

Comment 1 Bjørn Lie 2011-04-10 08:13:58 UTC

*** Bug 684824 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 2 Ilya Chernykh 2011-05-26 09:47:50 UTC

*** Bug 679017 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 3 Tomas Cech 2011-08-12 07:32:40 UTC

Red Hat already found the culprit.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626852

Comment 4 Tomas Cech 2011-08-12 07:33:33 UTC

uh, sorry, different problem described than in ML

Comment 5 Dominique Leuenberger 2012-05-17 19:37:20 UTC

The correct thing seems to be to keep libgirepository-1_0-1 with the lib, according the SLPP and apply the new typelib split policy.

%{_libdir}/girepository-1.0 folder can still be owned by the lib packages, to ensure no other packages break.

vuntz, what do you think about this approach?

Comment 6 Vincent Untz 2012-05-21 07:53:10 UTC

(In reply to comment #5)
> The correct thing seems to be to keep libgirepository-1_0-1 with the lib,
> according the SLPP and apply the new typelib split policy.
> 
> %{_libdir}/girepository-1.0 folder can still be owned by the lib packages, to
> ensure no other packages break.
> 
> vuntz, what do you think about this approach?

We possibly need a Requires for the split typelibs in libgirepository-1_0-1, though. It's possible that it uses some of those internally. But it should work otherwise -- assuming we get the automatic Requires/Provides ;-)

Comment 7 Dominique Leuenberger 2012-05-22 19:35:26 UTC

First attempt to resolve this in SR#121792.

Comment 8 Vincent Untz 2012-05-23 14:39:46 UTC

Thanks Dominique!